Massachusetts Daily Collegian

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

Massachusetts Daily Collegian

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

Massachusetts Daily Collegian

Mixed-up culinary conclusions

There’s a reason for the infamous “Freshman 15”- in fact, there’s an entire food pyramid of reasons.

Coffee. Without late night trips to the Procrastination Station for a cup of Rao’s, we would doze off in the Learning Commons atop textbook pillows. Chocolate. What a mood booster, judging by the skeleton-like vending machines during Finals Week.

Eggs. The omelet station at the dining commons is my sole motivation to trudge out of my dorm for an 8 a.m. class.

Pizza. Who doesn’t like people-watching on the streets of Amherst while devouring some delightfully exotic slice of Antonio’s pizza?

Alcohol. Enough said, for many undergrads.

Clearly, everyone has their reasons for indulging – but what’s the official, clinical, scientific verdict on all our favorite food and drinks?

Everywhere you turn, there are conflicting studies. Even better are conflicting findings within one study, which might as well cancel each other out, leaving one solid conclusion: the researchers discovered nothing at all.

My all-time favorite, chocolate, has undergone the wrath of the clinical study. In fact, the sweet treat should be having an identity crisis by now, after suffering through a cycle of scorn, apathy and praise. Initially, the word was to limit chocolate intake, or brace yourself for breakouts.

Then, with the finding that a steady diet of Hershey’s won’t induce breakouts, the chocolate-acne link appeared as one of every magazine’s top ten food myths. Now, researchers have ventured to claim that several types of chocolate are even beneficial to the skin and to overall health.

Bad effect, no effect, good effect – whatever. We’re torn between the original “chocolate, like anything sold in a candy store, rots your teeth away to nothing while doing the opposite to your waistline” logic, and the revolution of dark chocolate (as I write, I’m eating a square of Lindt’s 85 percent cacao dark chocolate, and supposedly simultaneously acquiring antioxidants, while either improving or dashing my chances of clear skin, depending on which study I’ve chosen to put stock in at the moment.)

How about eggs, the quintessential breakfast? Starting the morning with eggs always trumped donuts or a danish. But then came the sorry days of dividing the yolk between my two dogs – yes, eggs had gone down in the books as a food non grata for raising cholesterol. But – surprise, surprise – eggs are now back on the A-list for their protein and omega-3 fatty acids.

Coffee is one that we can’t function without. A cup of joe boasts those ever-popular antioxidants and, more importantly, provides a much-needed jolt in the morning. But drink too much and you’ll be jolted into a restless, sleepless night, not to mention put at risk for high blood pressure, ulcers and osteoporosis. Yet, all of the above considered, “Parade Magazine” recently called coffee “a health drink,” showcasing java as on par with a glass of V8.

Pizza has lycopene in its tomato sauce, which prevents cancer, and its vegetable toppings contain – guess what – antioxidants. But between the crust and cheese, it’s calorie-ridden, cholesterol-raising and oozing with saturated fat.

Wine. No amount of exaggeration can convey how many times I’ve heard the spiel on the benefits of red wine. But, in fact, grape juice is equally beneficial, and doesn’t have the negative health effects of alcohol, like increased risk of cancer, diabetes and obesity. Maybe I’m oversimplifying, but the cancer-preventing antioxidants from the grapes are essentially canceled out by the fact that alcohol increases cancer risk. Per usual, the contradictions just keep on coming.

What’s happening? Are people publishing just to see their names in print? Is corporate backing behind particular study results to blame? How about “publish or perish” – are academics overproducing study results to stay alive in their fields?

In response to the “New York Times” article “The sunny side of eggs,” a frustrated blogger wrote, “Sometimes health news feels like a trip to Wonderland, and sometimes it feels like Groundhog Day.” (“Deja-vu” also works fine to describe the weekly repeats of the same old results from new study sources.) Another blogger added, “Every so often there is another study that disputes the previous ‘wisdom’ and/or study … I for one am tired of being afraid with every new study.” And there is no drought of new studies that make us rethink our diets.

It’s like watching a tennis match. Back and forth. Tune into any major news network on Monday and the medical expert says that coffee is your ticket to a long life. Check in again on Wednesday, and there’s evidence that coffee increases your chances of breaking a hip in 50 years. Watch one more time on Friday, and hey, coffee just might be good for you after all. Back and forth.

My not so-official, hardly clinical, unscientific verdict? You might as well ignore everything that you hear on the news about antioxidants versus osteoporosis, and drink that cup of coffee – for the simple reason that it’ll keep you semi-conscious enough to write your English paper at three in the morning.

Katherine Marr is a Collegian columnist. She can be reached at [email protected].

Leave a Comment
More to Discover

Comments (0)

All Massachusetts Daily Collegian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *